TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accounted sales estimated by the assessee himself stands at 07.29%. We thus fail to understand as to how the GP for the unaccounted sale should be so lower at 03.56% which is less than half of the GP rate declared by the assessee himself on accounted sales. We appreciate the contention of the AO that the GP on accounted sales are likely to be on higher side as various fixed costs have already been fully claimed. The GP arrived at in the subsequent assessment year can probably give rise to some basis only when the GP of the current year is not available on records. The GP on accounted sales is available in the present case which forms sound basis for applying the same towards unaccounted sales. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) granting co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) For the Revenue : Lalit P. Jain, Sr.DR For the Assessee : D. M. Rimdani, AR ORDER Pradip Kumar Kedia (Accountant Member) The captioned appeals relate to Assessment Year (AY) 1999-2000 wherein Revenue seeks to assail the order of CIT(A) arising in quantum assessment and Assessee, on the other hand, is aggrieved by the penalty order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO). Therefore, the facts being broadly common, both the appeals are being disposed of by way of a consolidated order. ITA No.258/Rjt/2012 for AY 1999-2000 Revenue s appeal 2. The AO seeks to assail the relief granted by the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, Ahmedabad [ CIT(A) in short] in its order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings before it and applied the GP rate of 3.75% having regarding to the similar rate as considered reasonable for the subsequent AYs 2000-01 to 2005-06 by the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT. The CIT(A) granted further allowance of 0.19% thereon towards probability of relatively more expenses in the first year of business. The GP rate of 3.56% was thus considered reasonable and appropriate by the CIT(A). Consequently, addition made by the AO at ₹ 50,83,250/- was revised to ₹ 10,92,068/-. He thus granted relief of ₹ 39,91,182/- in GP estimations on unaccounted sales. 5. The Revenue is aggrieved by the aforesaid relief in the present appeal. 6. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:- 1. The Ld.CIT(A) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... finally submitted that in view of the decision of the ITAT in the subsequent assessment year, the basis of estimation adopted by the CIT(A) cannot be viewed favourably. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The short controversy revolve around estimation of GP on suppressed sales found as a result of search proceedings. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that the CIT(A) has misdirected itself on revising the suppressed sales at lower figure as noted in the preceding para. In this regard, we note that the unaccounted sales were modified by the CIT(A) in the earlier proceeding which has not been disputed by the AO. Further, no such dispute has arisen in the grounds of appeal also. Therefore, there is no occasion for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... available in the present case which forms sound basis for applying the same towards unaccounted sales. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) granting concession to the assessee on estimation of GP on suppressed sales found as a result of search based on some other assessment year cannot be approved. The relief granted by the CIT(A) is therefore reversed. 10. In the result, appeal of the Revenue in ITA No.258/RJT/2011 for AY 1999-2000 is allowed. ITA No.542/Rjt/2012 for AY 1999-2000 Assessee s appeal 11. The ground of appeal raised by the by the Assessee reads as under:- 1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Rajkot has erred in dismissing the appeal whereby upholding the penalty or passed u/s.271(1)(c) of the I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is onerous and ought not to have been imposed. 15. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, relied upon the order of the AO and submitted that the legal ground of specification towards charge was not taken before the CIT(A). It was further contended that no immunity is available to the assessee as the suppressed sales have been detected in the course of search. 16. We have carefully considered rival submissions. At the outset, we take note of the legal arguments raised on behalf of the assessee that appropriate charge has not been specified in the show-cause notice issued to the assessee. A perusal of notice issued under s.274 read with s.271(1)(c) shows that the relevant part of the notice has not been struck off. Thus, it can be inferred that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
